SALES CAREERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ATRIUM OFFICE PARK, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a landlord's negligent notification to a tenant regarding premises readiness sounds in tort, and the special damages are not limited by a contract provision.
A tenant sued a landlord for negligent notification that premises were ready for occupancy when they were not. The tenant claimed special damages incl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdictional Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
[*535] PEARSON, Judge.
This interlocutory appeal is from an order transferring the cause from the circuit court to the county court upon the ground stated in the motion that: “The lease attached to the plaintiff’s complaint sets forth that the plaintiff’s recovery is limited to an abatement of rent of a period not in excess of 17 days, which said abatement under the terms of the lease would in any event be less than the minimum jurisdiction of this Court to wit: $2,500.00.”1
The complaint claimed damages for the landlord’s negligent notification to the tenant that the premises were ready for occupancy when, in fact, the premises were not ready for occupancy. The special damages claimed included disruption of business, loss of income and additional expenses. The trial judge accepted the landlord’s argument that all of these claimed damages were, as a matter of law, the end result of the landlord’s being unable to give possession of the leased premises on the date stipulated and that a provision of the lease precluded any claim for damages in excess of an abatement of rent for the period lost. Cf. Harvey Corporation v. Universal Equipment Co., 1947, 158 Fla. 644, 29 So. 2d 700.
We hold that the cause of action alleged here sounds in tort and that the special damages alleged and recoverable in tort in this case are not limited by the contract provision. See Holbrook v. City of Sarasota, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 862; and Banfield v. Addington, 1932, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893.
The order transferring the cause and dismissing the complaint is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to require the defendant to answer the complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
. The order also grants defendant’s motion to age in view of the transfer order. dismiss. This portion of the order is surplus-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. Andie's, Inc., 137 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…v. Willingham Real-growth Inv. Fund, Ltd., 552 So. 2d 228, 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (consequential damages in tort claim); Gellert v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); Sales Careers, Inc. v. Atrium Office Park, Inc., 318 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (special damages in tort claim). In conclusion, we hold that the trial court erred in granting the motion to compel arbitration. We also find that the offending “portion” of the subject provisions in AHLA rule 6.06 is not se…
Authorities Cited
- Banfield v. Addison S. Addington and Daisy T. Addington, 104 Fla. 661 (Fla. 1932)
- Holbrook v. City of Sarasota, 58 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1952)
- Harvey Corp. v. Universal Equip. Co., 158 Fla. 644 (Fla. 1947)